Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Low Earth Orbit
DIY Audio
Comparing LF drivers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Josh Ricci" data-source="post: 106476" data-attributes="member: 1594"><p>Re: Comparing LF drivers</p><p></p><p>In addition to what Bennett has said...</p><p></p><p>Do not put too much faith into what you see in speaker simulation programs or with using calculations to scale up output. These are "perfect" results with zero compression or "drift". This is not what happens in the real world. They are useful but always remember that the data put out is only as accurate as the data put in. Driver specifications are typically captured at the small signal level and many of them will change drastically once stronger signals are sent into it. (This is why Klippel type testing is very useful) The higher power drivers with more excursion capability and better cooling will better cope with and respond to increased output demands.</p><p></p><p> I have taken measurements at high power on 2242HPL drivers and many other high power 18" drivers and while the 2242HPL looks very good on paper just as you said it does, it exhibits much lower power handling both thermal and mechanical, less excursion limited output, less tolerance to abuse and a cone that is rather fragile when compared to current high power driver designs like the B&C SW series. The 2242HPL is still a nice driver that can sound very good and it is very sensitive so it can perform well but it is a much older, less powerful design so it reaches its limits sooner with less power than many of the top drivers today and is far less tolerant of abuse. A lot of this stuff is not going to jump out from the typical spec sheet. There is a reason that JBL has drivers like the 2269H now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Josh Ricci, post: 106476, member: 1594"] Re: Comparing LF drivers In addition to what Bennett has said... Do not put too much faith into what you see in speaker simulation programs or with using calculations to scale up output. These are "perfect" results with zero compression or "drift". This is not what happens in the real world. They are useful but always remember that the data put out is only as accurate as the data put in. Driver specifications are typically captured at the small signal level and many of them will change drastically once stronger signals are sent into it. (This is why Klippel type testing is very useful) The higher power drivers with more excursion capability and better cooling will better cope with and respond to increased output demands. I have taken measurements at high power on 2242HPL drivers and many other high power 18" drivers and while the 2242HPL looks very good on paper just as you said it does, it exhibits much lower power handling both thermal and mechanical, less excursion limited output, less tolerance to abuse and a cone that is rather fragile when compared to current high power driver designs like the B&C SW series. The 2242HPL is still a nice driver that can sound very good and it is very sensitive so it can perform well but it is a much older, less powerful design so it reaches its limits sooner with less power than many of the top drivers today and is far less tolerant of abuse. A lot of this stuff is not going to jump out from the typical spec sheet. There is a reason that JBL has drivers like the 2269H now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Low Earth Orbit
DIY Audio
Comparing LF drivers
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!